CRP/1420/2024 of SHAIK FIROZ KHAN Vs GANTA PUNNA RAO on 8 March 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.03.2024 passed in E.A.No.63 of 2023 in E.P.No.50 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2023 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner/Decree Holder, while respondent is the respondent/Judgment Debtor in E.A.No.63 of 2023 in E.P.No.50 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

(i) For realisation of the decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No.24 of 2023, the petitioner, who was the plaintiff of the suit filed Execution Petition vide O.E.P.No.50 of 2023. Pending the said Execution petition, the Decree holder filed E.A.No.63 of 2024 under Order-VI, Rule-17, read with Section 151 seeking permission of the Court to amend the survey number of the E.P.schedule property as 196/2B instead of 196 and delete Survey No.193, stating that the E.P. filed by him for allowed by this Court and the document was sent for registration by the Court, however, the same was returned stating that the said property is in prohibited list. It is further stated RC,J

that survey No.196 was subdivided and now the schedule property is situated in Survey No.196/2B as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor.

(ii) Since the Judgment Debtor remained ex parte in the main E.P., no notice was ordered in Execution Application.

(iii) The learned Executing Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the material available on record, dismissed the petition holding that Mandal Surveyor’s report is unclear as to what documents were considered and perused for arriving at the conclusion and surveyor’s report nowhere mentions that survey No.196 was subdivided and it shows that report was given solely basing on the property shown by the petitioner and further the report was not countersigned by the Mandal Revenue Officer.

(iv) The said dismissal order was assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner for execution of the specific performance decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.24 of 2023 was allowed and accordingly, the sale deed was sent for registration, however the registration authorities rejected to register the sale deed on the ground that Survey No.196 was included in prohibited properties list. He would RC,J

further contend that thereafter the petitioner got the land surveyed through Mandal Surveyor, who submitted report stated that Survey No.196 was subdivided and the plaint schedule property as of now situates in Survey No.196/2B and in view of the same the petitioner filed petition to amend the plaint schedule for substitution of Survey No.196/2B in place of Survey No.196 and to delete Survey No.193 from the E.P.schedule, however the learned executing court upon erroneous view of the matter that the Mandal Surveyor did not enclose any documents to the report and that the same was not counter signed by Mandal Revenue Officer, dismissed the petition. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for he petitioner.

7. The record discloses that the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance was decreed. He filed Execution Petition and the same was allowed and accordingly, the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property was sent for Registration. The said sale deed was returned without being registered on the ground that survey No.196 was included in prohibited properties list.

8. The docket order passed by the learned executing court shows that the report of the Mandal Survey dated 18.01.2024 was filed by the petitioner RC,J

along with the amendment petition, but the court declined to consider the same on the ground that the said report does not specify as to what documents were perused by the Mandal Surveyor while conducting survey.

9. Along with the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner filed the Award No.14/NG/2011 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. As per the said award, Survey No.196 was subdivided and Survey No.196/2A does exit. It further shows that land in Survey No.196/2A was developed into layout by M/s. GPR Housing Private Limited and it was approved by the VC, TUDA in LP No.36/G1/2000, dated 03.08.2002. The E.P.schedule also refers to the same L.P.No.36/G1/2000, dated 03.08.2002. Therefore, dismissal of the amendment petition on the ground of lacking clarity as to which documents were verified for coming to the conclusion that there was sub-division of Survey No.196 is unsustainable. The award passed by Revenue Divisional officer clearly shows that there was sub-division and hence the amendment petition can be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati in E.A.No.63 of 2024 in E.P.No.50 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2023. Consequently, the petition in E.A.No.63 of 2024 in RC,J

E.P.No.50 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2023 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9th March, 2026.

RR